Posse Incitatus

The Dems have betrayed just about everything they ever believed

One of the interesting things about getting older is that personal memories stretch back into periods that are increasingly regarded as "history."

Of course we have lots of books and now even videos to document what was, but no written (or video) account can replicate the immediacy of seeing events as they happened.

I'm not an old man (yet), but already I feel like an age of the world has passed.  Yes, I was literally born in a previous century, but the political landscape is unrecognizable from what it was only a quarter century ago. 

The media blames this on radicalized Republicans, but in fact it's the Democrats who have now repudiated almost their entire party platform from my youth.  The GOP has made changes as well, but mostly these are in response to massive lurches from the opposition.

Once upon a time, there were these strange creatures called "pro-life Democrats," and they included prominent figures among them.  Bill Clinton famously said abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."  Abortion was lawful, but a tragedy and people of good will should work hard so that it rarely if ever happened.

But now of course it's a great thing, and billion-dollar industry profits not only off of the wholesale murder of America's youth, but from the sales of the unborn corpses as well.  Hypocrites like Nancy Pelosi can hide behind the "seamless garment" mumbo-jumbo to defend their betrayal of the Catholic faith, but on what grounds does she excuse cannibalizing unborn children for spare parts?

Democrats used to be the party of the blue-collar working class.  Now they despise manual labor as a past time, and also the very masculinity that supports and sustains it.  The party that once ranged itself against Big Business is now a slave to it, beholden to dot-com billionaires who want endless streams of indentured low-wage servants to code their platforms and support their server farms.

The southern border was once a prime concern of the Democrats, and there's plenty of tape showing Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer and other luminaries demanding stronger safeguards to protect American workers.

Now those same sentiments are "racist" or "immoral" and what America really needs is an endless flood of human trafficking, smuggled drugs and unskilled labor to drive down wages.

Free speech was something the Dems loved, but now they hate it.  The old ACLU was willing to sue on behalf on Nazis; the new ACLU thinks that "hate speech" shouldn't be protected.

Similarly, the Dems once supported due process for people accused of crimes.  Now they and their ACLU allies think it's more important to get convictions than defend the presumption of innocence.

I remember when John F. Kennedy was a symbol of religious integration, and his election as president was hailed as triumph over Protestant bigotry.  But now the Dems are the ones pushing anti-Catholic bigotry and suggesting that people of certain faiths are unsuitable for public office.

One of those suspect faiths is also Judaism.  The Democrat party is still the home for the vast majority of the Jewish electorate, but they can't sit along side anti-Semites indefinitely.  At some point the Jews will be expelled from the party, which will fully embrace anti-Israel policies it's currently flirting with.

I also can remember when Democrats shouted "keep government out of the bedroom!"  Now they want it there on a continual basis to document everything that could possibly happen.

In the 80s it was no one's business what consenting adults do, but now the very notion of whether women can consent at all is in play.

Democrat feminism went from "I am woman, hear me roar!" to "I'm a snowflake, and even the slightest pressure will cause me to knuckle under to patriarchy."  Hillary Clinton's bitter speech that GOP women vote the way their menfolk say they should was a total repudiation of Democrat feminism.  Indeed, one could make the case for repealing the Nineteenth Amendment simply by quoting modern feminists.

Ronald Reagan famously said that he didn't leave the Democrats; they were the ones who left him.

Compared to what has happened since my youth, the change he saw was incremental.  Other than the name, it's hard to recognize anything a Democrat of 1980 would have in common with one today.

 

Fake Pope rails against fake Catholics

After enough outrages, one starts to take a jaded view of things.  The nerve becomes dull, and it's hard to work up much ire seeing the same old people do the same old things.

That's pretty much how I feel about Pope Francis.

Last week, he did yet another theological loop-to-loop and decided that Catholic "haters" aren't welcome in the pews. 

This is of course a complete reversal from what he has said for years, which is that the Church is a 'field hospital' for sinners who need help.  The more broken and compromised the better!  He was all about mercy, indeed making it a centerpiece of his message.

But that was before we learned he had turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children by pervert priests for years.  Moreover, he's still not really troubled by it and he wishes the faithful would just let it go already and focus on compassion to migrants (who are often part of sex trafficking) or Mother Gaia rather than the icky things his subordinates to innocent children.

It's a tough time for the Church to have a pope like this.  The US Senate is starting to quiz judicial nominees about their membership in the Knights of Columbus, treating it as analogous the Communist Party of the 1950s.

That such open bigotry can be displayed in the United State should be a top concern of the Church, especially considering the actual violence being used elsewhere, but Francis is too busy doing his version of Orange Man Bad to notice.

Actually, he reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton during the impeachment period, when his mantra was that he needed to get back to the business of the American people.  Impeachment was just lies about sex, and no one should care.  It was a distraction.

Francis is saying the same thing about his refusal to purge the Church of sexual predators.   Presumably the reason he's saying this is that he can't say anything else without having his compromised associates turn on him.

And increasingly, no one cares, because if you can't trust your children to be safe in the hands of the Church, everything else is just details.

Welcome to 2019

Our readers will no doubt have noticed that blogging here has been sparse over the past few weeks.  Partly this was due to my being out of town (and having to recover) but since then it's simply fatigue with the repetitive cycle of anger that permeates the news.

Roger L. Simon has dubbed 2018 the year of living hatefully, which is both clever and accurate.

Vitriol is everywhere and it is not longer enough to merely disagree with someone.  No, dissenters must have their lives up-ended, losing jobs and homes if possible to punish them for their evil thoughts.

For a long time, this was a one-sided game, with the left joyfully attacking with impunity, but now the center-right is also getting radicalized.  We are rapidly filling what Winston Churchill dubbed "the vials of wrath" in our society.  When they are full, bad things will happen that no one will be able to control.

At the same time, I still see hope in the year ahead.  The popular rebellion in defense of "Baby it's Cold Outside," was both necessary and instructive.  We are reaching the point where the inherent contradictions in radical-left ideology are becoming unavoidable.  Just as with the transgender movement now attacking feminist icons like Martina Navratilova or banning drag queens, something here has to give.

It was one thing to sneer at half-century-old values, but increasingly views held only a year ago are being declared anathema for insufficient "wokeness."  No one can live like that.

We enter the new year with much of the federal government on furlough, and this fact will present a severe challenged to the new Democrat-run House of Representatives.  The modern left is expert at posing, preening and sniping, but actual governance is something different.  One need only glance at the once-lauded European titans who are now either caretakers or zombie leaders of to see what happens when inflexible principles meet implacable reality.

Whatever happens, we at the Posse wish you a happy new year and remind you that faith, family and freedom are what really matters.  Everything else is just details.

The diminished Pope

Yesterday's post about how the once-respected University of Michigan medical school is pissing away its reputation by twisting statistics in favor of gun control (while avoiding the far more serious issue of youth suicide) reminded me of another example of an organization forfeiting its moral authority.

I'm referring of course to Pope Francis.  I've largely tuned him out these days, simply because he's essentially irrelevant to the spiritual issues of our time. 

I once defended him because, like President Trump, news coverage of him is shockingly dishonest.  Particularly around the holidays, there would be some breathless account of how he's altering the dogma - usually written by someone who doesn't know what it is and who hates the Catholic Church.

But now the spin is going the other way.  It is the Pope who is desperately trying to change the subject and strike hip moral poses on issues near and dear of leftists.  He can't stop talking about global warming, open borders and abolishing the death penalty.

Of course, none of these issues are existential ones for the Catholic Church.  If the earth gets hotter or cooler, Christ's message will still be important.

But that message will be lost of the messenger - The Church - is perceived as hopelessly corrupt.

That's exactly what's going on.

If Francis were truly concerned about his job, he'd have immediately forced the resignations of dozens of top-ranking authorities, and opened the archives to civil authorities in the various jurisdictions where the crimes occurred.

Instead, he's still shielding men who committed horrific crimes against vulnerable children and covered it up for years.  It's now clear that these predators weren't isolated incidents but in fact organized groups who offered mutual protection from church and secular investigators.

Perhaps because they have closer contact with actual lay people, the US bishops are acting quickly to contain the damage and expose the guilty.  Instead of lauding this zeal, the Pope obstructed it.

And then he goes and preens about how bad the death penalty is.

Meanwhile, even my own humble parish is embroiled in this, and while some of fallen away, I'm encouraged by the renewed spirit of both parishioners and the clergy.  They recognize that this is a time of trial and they are gearing up to face it. 

Interestingly, mentions of the Pope are becoming few and far between.  The diocesan magazine used to regularly feature stories and speeches by Francis.  Now?  Not so much.  Instead there are forceful denunciations of corruption, renewed pledges of reform, requests for victims to come forward and overt demonstrations of transparency, such as opening all records to local law enforcement.

The bishops understand that without trust and accountability, nothing else matters.  They can preach until they are blue in the face and no one will care.

Someone ought to point this out to Francis. 

Until he acts to punish the wicked men who abused children and defiled their holy offices, he has nothing to say to me.

The War on Thanksgiving

For many years people have spoken of a "War on Christmas," but there's another, more insidious struggle going on: the war on Thanksgiving.

This blog has addressed society's increasing sense of ingratitude many times over the years.  Increasingly, this is manifesting itself as a contempt for the holiday dedicated to showing gratitude.

A low point when the decision - since reversed - for stores to start Black Friday a day early.  It's not clear whether it was the customers or the put-upon employees who helped kill this awful idea, but it was indicative of a mindset that holidays are merely excuses for retail opportunities.

Similarly, the New York Times continues what appears to be a leftist tradition of planning how to piss off your family members over a communal meal dedicated to unity.  They've created a "angry uncle" bot so that its human bots can practice their talking points.

I've noted before the unintentional insult this places on young progressives, since it takes as its starting point  that they're of independent cognition and need to be programmed with bullet points, like one of those old-fashioned talking toys where you pull the string or push the button to get the desired phrase.

Indeed, even the derisive "Turkey Day" reduces a solemn feast into a mere entree.

Sadly, all of this is to be expected.  A core trait of human nature going back to the limits of recorded history is ingratitude.  We want what we don't have and despise what we do.  That's why Thanksgiving is so important.

I've found that happiest people are those who are content and appreciative of their blessings.  Naturally, these are not the people who join the left. 

I've said before that I think Michael Savage has the equation backwards - liberalism isn't a mental illness, it's a magnet for those who are already mentally ill.  One might even surmise that one reason why socialism always fails is that it is always - and without exception - implemented by people who put vengeance over prosperity.  Given a choice between feeding the poor or providing medicine and crushing their political enemies, the latter always wins out over the former.

Historically, the antidote to ingratitude was a bout of privation.  Given how long it's been since our society has known true hardship, it's bound to be a doozy.

As always, we at the Posse are most thankful for Faith, Family and Freedom, and wish you and yours a blessed Thanksgiving.

 

That which cannot be controlled must be destroyed - a new theory of Never Trumpism

UPDATE:  I'm dubbing this the "war elephant theory" of Never Trumpism.

 

The ongoing ballot shenanigans in Florida, Georgia and Arizona are all too familiar.  What is new is the endorsement of this practice by people who nominally consider themselves conservatives.

These are the ones who keep chanting “rule of law” like a magic incantation, but they seem curiously aloof when Democrats blatantly steal elections.

I am referring of course to the Quisling Never Trumpers.

Long-time readers have seen me address these vile beings at length, but something occurred to me today that makes me think I had their motivation somewhat wrong.  To be sure, they are motivated in large part by grift, but upon reflection, they are also motivated by conviction, it’s just not the conviction they speak of openly.

That conviction is that the masses are superstitious, violent, bigoted and in need of constant control and supervision.  Essentially, they think the same thing about conservatives that progressives do, but instead of seeking the outright defeat or elimination of the GOP base, they see themselves as keepers of the beast.

Many of them are atheists, though they have kept this quiet until recently.  Moreover, they are the kind of atheist who feels utter contempt on those who take religion seriously.  This is why so many of them hector evangelical voters as being hypocrites for voting for Trump.  The vitriol comes from a place of hatred, not a desire to educate or persuade.  George Will is in this camp, as is the dolt still calling himself Allahpundit.

The religious wing actually shares the same loathing, but for different reasons.  They consider themselves more pure than the louts who soil the pews around them, and they believe that by constantly turning the other cheek (and thereby losing every political battle) they are demonstrating their superior piety and virtue.

The Protestants can point to their prominence and prosperity as evidence that they are in the Elect, while the Catholic and Orthodox liken themselves the martyrs of old.  This is why Ed Morrissey is all about selfless surrender on every issue.  Rod Dreher is even more extreme, pitching his ludicrous “Benedict Option” of simply ceding the world to leftist extremists and hiding out in the hills until someone else gets the moral strength to stop them.

One could write an entire essay on the Jewish faction, but David Horowitz pretty much nailed it when he described William Kristol as a “renegade Jew.”  Many of these ‘neocons’ are legacy members of the conservative establishment and never experienced the personal revelation that turned their fathers from the left.  Having been born on third base, they harbor a brooding contempt for those stuck on first.

All of these groups actually agree that “red America” is populated with hot-heads, who at any moment could launch themselves into violence on a regional scale.  This is why George W. Bush was so insistent on not mentioning militant Islam as an enemy.  He truly feared the overnight appearance of Klan militias.

It is also why these people  were always lukewarm of the right to life.  In fact, they are closer to Margaret Sanger than they’d like to admit.  Kevin Williamson gave the game away when he went on his infamous rant about rural white communities needing to die.

Ironically, Williamson has stridently defended the right to life, which cost him his gig at The Atlantic, but he clearly doesn’t like the people he’s supposed to be defending.  He’s also done nothing constructive for the cause he claims to hold dear.

Their deep dislike of the rural whites who make up their following is why they are so infatuated with immigration.  They long for the day that they, too can have a “diverse” following.  Even though it may be a permanent political minority, at least they won’t have to pretend to like NASCAR and guns.

Speaking of guns, there are few establishment conservatives who actually own them, let alone think anyone else should have them.  The Never Trumpers are almost uniformly in favor of sharp restrictions on gun ownership, precisely because they think their base is mentally unstable and could snap at a moment’s notice.

Some years ago when “The Walking Dead” was a new thing, a robust debate took place on National Review’s blog and a number of military members pointed out how a zombie outbreak would likely be contained quickly once the military got involved.

Combat Lawyer David French strongly disagreed, and his argument revealed he had nothing but contempt for the people he served with, regarding them as undisciplined, selfish and brutal.

All of these people see conservatives as essentially a monster to be tamed and controlled.  The propensity of conservatives to have religious faith, to own firearms and even to serve in the military are all reasons they need to be constantly policed and watched. 

To do that, they often affect a laid-back, devil-may care persona, such as the one crafted by Jonah Goldberg in the 1990s.  We should relate to him because he likes Star Wars and makes Simpsons jokes.  He likes to play the everyman who plays with his dog, savors spiced meats and drinks beer while watching movies.  He’s a true mench.

Except that he isn’t, and he’s always known that.  His job was to throw just enough snark at the left to keep his charges under control, and when they stopped listening to him in 2016, the mask fell away.  His true personality – insecure, status-conscious, arrogant – has come out at last.  The guy who wrote self-deprecating columns about sitting on a semi-sentient couch now wants everyone to know he’s a serious scholar and holds an endowed chair.

Ask yourself:  what happens when an animal disobeys its trainer?  Does the trainer use reason and persuasion, or does it impose sharp discipline and reassert dominance?

The Never Trumpers thought of the base as a pack of dogs for so long, they don’t understand why smacking us with newspapers and ordering us to heel isn’t working.

It’s also why their arguments are so devoid of any kind of persuasion.  After all, why waste logic on an animal?

The core belief in the propensity of conservatives toward mindless violence unless controlled explains a lot of the neocon obsession with starting wars abroad, doesn’t it?  Max Boot is probably convinced that absent some desert to fight and die in, the rednecks who make up the bulk of the Army may well turn on him.  Better to keep them busy chasing around the Hindu Kush.  Permanent war is a necessary safety valve to keep America’s Cossacks from descending on the Jews.

And yes, they do believe their base is both racist and anti-Semitic and when we stopped responding to the crack of their whip, they came out and said so.

In light of all this, it makes sense that these tools would parrot liberal talking points that voter fraud is a myth.  As part of their worldview, they believe that it’s more important that the masses be deluded and restrained than that system actually work.

Because once people stop believing that the elections are accurate, they might take matters into their own hands.  Again, the beast has to be kept sedated.  They can’t understand how their arguments are actually making rebellion more likely since the left is now so blatant in its cheating no serious-minded person can doubt that it’s going on.

Thus we come to the final step of their play, which is an overt, actual alliance with the left.  The monster they thought they controlled has slipped its chain and they will work with anyone they can find to bring about its destruction. 

And so, like a trainer who was watched their beast rampage into the circus crowd, they are willing to shed a tear as they try to put down the beast, but they have no doubt in their heart that the beast must die.

The truth about the Catholic Church scandal that none dare to speak

This week Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano released his third open letter or "testimony." 

It is powerful stuff.  In his introduction he states plainly that he feels compelled to speak out because to do otherwise would put his soul in mortal danger.  He cannot go before God without telling the world all he knows about the evil lurking in the bosum of the Catholic Church.

The then goes on and rebuts the Papacy's talking points that his charges have been successfully disproven or refuted, noting that the Pope's henchmen are focusing on discrediting things he didn't say and ignoring the things he did say.

The conclusion, however, is even more powerful:

As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.

Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds -- whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.

He's absolutely right.  We live in a fallen world, and when a leader fails to live up to a moral code, it is a tragedy.

Given the size of the Catholic Church, such failings are inevitable.  They are to be expected and they happen in all faiths because all religious leaders in this world are mortals, prone to error by their nature.

What sets this scandal apart is that there is an organized faction within the Church hiding and enabling it.

Like most Catholics, I assumed Church leaders were simply unaware of the scope of the problem and had been duped and betrayed by canny and unscrupulous predators.  I believed that the payments and coverups were made out of a sincere (but flawed) hope that the individuals would repent and sin no more and the fear that the Church's reputation would so harmed as to damage its mission.

It goes without saying that I strongly disagree with the Church's actions, but I thought I could understand them.

I know know - the world now knows - differently.

These crooked priests and their degenerate bishops never meant to reform, they were only playing a game.  They victimized not just children, but also other priests in their depravity.

And they were overwhelmingly homosexual.

Indeed, they celebrated this fact and flaunted it whenever possible, only to play the victim card about Catholic "homophobia" whenever they faced exposure. 

But sexual predators are despicable whether gay or straight. 

The State of Michigan is now conducting on investigation and the dioceses are promising full cooperation.  Closer to home, one of the pastors in my diocese recently resigned his position after credible allegations of sexual harassment.  We've since learned that his target wasn't just a church employee, but another priest.

How often did priests keep this to themselves, fearful of retaliation or creating scandal?  It is sad that such things have happened, but also encouraging that good men are speaking out and stopping this behavior in its tracks.

Pope Francis has long frustrated conservative Catholics with this erratic utterances, obsession with trendy progressive causes and his constant flirtations with heresy, but his failure to address this situation directly has destroyed his moral authority.

 

Pope Francis must resign

I agree with much of what my esteemed co-blogger has written about the corruption in the Catholic Church, but I also feel he paints with too broad a brush.

Don't worry, this isn't another one of those "only a tiny minority of bad people are responsible" apologies because it's clear that the minority isn't so tiny.

It's also clear that their transgressions were deliberate, which is to say intentional.  I long believed that good but conflicted people in holy orders failed and continued to fail in times of weakness.  They sincerely repented upon fear of being caught or perhaps truly wished to change, but always returned to their sinful ways.

I also thought that their superiors covered up for them out of misguided compassion and a sense of shame.  I now know better.

The Left has been trying to destroy the Church since it first emerged in the tumult of the French Revolution.    The virulent anti-clericalism that emerged was the direct ancestor of Marxism and has been passed onto modern Progressivism.

The libertine left wants to destroy all other sources of moral authority, so bringing down all churches is a necessary first step to implement their desire of fundamentally remaking humanity.

The Protestant churches have largely succumbed to this onslaught, but Catholicism remains stubbornly defiant.  Its size, deep traditions, respect for authority and heirarchical structure render it all but impervious to external assault.

So it's enemies changed their tactics and chose to undermine it from within.

How else to explain the strange silence from the Vatican when the Pennsylvania report was released?  The reaction should have been swift and severe - removal from authority of every named office holder until a full investigation could be conducted.

The payoffs were supposedly to prevent "scandal," but a greater scandal is leaving these false holy men in place.  Authority within the Church is a sacred honor, not a right or a title of nobility.  Bishops and higher clergy should willingly step down if there is any doubt as to their behavior and cheerfully submit themselves to a life of humility while the investigation proceeds.

It is, after all, the example of Christ Himself.

The fact that none of this happened and that the Pope wishes to change the subject is to me compelling evidence of his guilt.  

His cabal is a cancer within the Church and it must be expelled.  If he won't resign, the dioceses and bishops should withhold contributions to the Holy See until he submits.  Similarly, I would hope the various patriarchates in communion with Rome would likewise suspend their relationship until Francis relinquishes the Throne of St. Peter.

In this sense I disagree with my colleague about the proper response.  The Church as a whole is a caring, nurturing organization.  I love my parish and respect our local priests.  Our bishop has demonstrated exactly the zero-tolerance attitude I have spoken of in recent cases regarding potential wrongdoing by priests.  In both cases suspension was immediate and local authorities were promptly brought in to investigate.

Happily, in neither incident was there the hint of a sexual crime, but the message went out loud and clear: the collar is a sacred duty not to be taken lightly.

It is no accident that as standards have grown stricter, the quantity and quality of seminarians have both increased.  I have no desire to harm my parish by withholding financial or spiritual support.  These people are doing good work.  God bless them all.

No, the pressure must be directly squarely at the Curia of Rome.  Not a dime to the Vatican! 

Catholics around the world need to boycott the Holy See until he steps down.  Let Pope Francis hold his audiences in an empty chamber and offer prayers to a vacant square. 

The Church has faced similar challenges before, and always by the grace of God she has weathered the storm.  With God's help, we will get through this one as well and the Church will be renewed once more.

When heresy gives way to outright paganism

One of the core tenets of the Protestant Reformation was the primacy of scripture over all other sources of divine inspiration.  Martin Luther was inconsistent in this (and his successors went much farther), but the source of most - if not all - variations on Catholic/Orthodox Christianity is a differing interpretation of the Bible.

The Church of England was unique among the Protestants insofar as its split from Rome was entirely on secular grounds:  Henry VIII wanted to marry again so he could produce a male heir.

In time, some differences in use emerged, but they were quite minor.  It was probably because the distinctions were so small that Anglicans made such a big deal about their independent thought and threw so much hate at Catholics (that and it was a way to piss all over their Irish subjects).

The collapse of the Church of England is fascinating to see and the pace of its devolution is accelerating.  The new hotness - which has popped up before in nominally Lutheran Sweden - is "de-gendering" God. 

The reasons are the same as for the Swedish Church - supposedly it makes it more "inclusive," which means traditionalists are to be driven out entirely.

The article referenced above indicates that the new Book of Common Prayer could be ready for approval as early as 2030.

I think it will take effect long before that.  Once the left decides it wants something, it never lets an established process slow it down.  In the short run, individual parishes will simply make up their own version knowing full well that no one in the Anglican Communion will ever face discipline for violating their rules.

Like the United Methodists, the Anglicans have for some time been having an unofficial contest to see just how many commandments its clergy can break with impunity.

The end result won't be recognizable as a Christian church, it will be either Unitarian or overtly pagan, centered around a "Mother Earth" goddess.

This is what the left does.  It burrows into institutions, hollows them out and then pretends the corpse is still a living, sentient being. 

There is of course a certain amount of irony that an institution that once burned witches will likely be run by them in the very near future.

 

When Mothers Day became a revolutionary act

The prolonged winter has led to  an amazing burst of growth.  Trees and flowers are practically exploding into bloom an in effort to catch up on lost time.  A couple of weeks ago my neighborhood was brown and bare, but now it is awash in every imaginable shade of green punctuated with brilliant hues of purple, white, yellow and red (to name jut a few).

It's no accident that Mothers Day falls on a Sunday in May.  From time immemorial women have symbolized fertility, growth and hope for the future, just as spring frees us from the seeming death of winter.

Yet to the cultural left, motherhood is no longer a blessing. "Choice" is more important - and by this they of course mean violent death to the unborn or being-born. 

Many commentators (including us on this blog) have offered alternative definitions of "feminism," but perhaps its most striking feature is its rejection of femininity itself.  Women are uniquely capable of motherhood, a sacred and crucial rule, honored in every culture in every epoch.  Yet feminists have nothing but contempt for women who choose to make this role the centerpiece of their lives.  Some go so far as to denounce fecund women as "breeders" and blame them for every evil in the world. 

The chimera of overpopulation vanished long ago, yet feminists still raise it as a way to explain, justify and even exalt in their barrenness.

For what history will surely look on as a fleeting instant, a strange group calling themselves "pro-sex feminists" at least celebrated female sexuality, but even that is being buried in the "yes means yes" and "#metoo" movement, which hold as their core teaching that women no longer have the force of will or mental ability to truly consent to sexual activity.

Simply telling a man who makes an ungallant offer to get lost is too much to expect.  Why he might get angry, or break up with her, or refuse a second date!  And so they acquiesce, but reserve the right to ruin him later on by smearing him as a rapist without a shred of proof.

Even Her Hillaryness Herself is insisting that she lost the vote of married women because of pressure exercised on them by their fathers, husbands and sons.  Is she saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or marry?  But even then, they still have fathers.

It is a puzzlement.

There is a tendency among aging Boomers to try to defend "original" feminism and claim it ran off the rails, but this nonsense has been baked into it from the beginning.  Feminism owes its origins and world view to the experience of idle, rich, white women. 

It is deeply ironic - and indicative - that the glamorous life of Hollywood feminists, with its endless stream of ex-husbands, lovers and random children with different fathers, has now been exposed as a colossal lie.

Even Hollywood royalty like Angelina Jolie now claim to have been pressured into sex.  We've already discussed how "male feminist" is really just a synonym for a sexual predator who targets only the most vulnerable women.

Left out of this lamentable tale is one group, still the most despised in all of feminism:  happily married mothers.  They committed to marriage for life, raised their children and stand by their man.  The culture hates them for it, but jealously always hates what it can't have.

In an age of destruction where the sacred is constantly being profaned, honoring tradition becomes a revolutionary act.  It warms my ice-cold heart to know today millions of mothers will be thanked and honored by their children.